No, you've misunderstood. Currently, if you die before taking your pension then the fund will generally pass tax free to your beneficiaries. That isn't what the consultation is looking at. Rather, they're looking at what age the pension saver should be able to have free access to their savings. It is 55 at the moment - the consultation suggested that this age should be linked in some way to the State Pension Retirement Age as the latter climbs. If it helps, I don't support that view.
-
Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.
Anyone reduced their pension contribution?
- Thread starter OpenToSuggestions
- Start date
No, you've misunderstood. Currently, if you die before taking your pension then the fund will generally pass tax free to your beneficiaries. That isn't what the consultation is looking at. Rather, they're looking at what age the pension saver should be able to have free access to their savings. It is 55 at the moment - the consultation suggested that this age should be linked in some way to the State Pension Retirement Age as the latter climbs. If it helps, I don't support that view.
Sorry, but you're taking nonsense.
People are being auto-enrolled (also known as saving for their retirement) so that they can try and support themselves on top of what the state provides. The state will provide less in the future, despite the triple lock.
If you're not drawing your pension now then your fund passes on tax free. If you are then it currently passes on with up to 55% tax. The current consultation is taking views on what level this should be reduced down to.
Who is 'they'? I think you may be confusing personal pensions with state pensions.
Interesting point re the 60 year olds you quote, but why property? You could pick any number of pensionable assets and have the same or better outcome. I genuinely despair at the lack of pension knowledge in this country. The complex stuff is hugely difficult to understand but 99% of people just need to know the basics and they are incredibly simple.
The pension situation in the uk is a shambles and an expensive one at that. I twould be impossible to advi9ice anyone without exact details. The people laughing in the Uk are those in the public sector with their inflation proof pensions and excellent pensions too - but all paid for by the taxpayer - its a 2 tier society - Oh and many don't need to work the full quota and retire early - I regret that I can only speak from personal experience not academically
I've never paid for any of the advice I've had with my pension advisers?
Did your pension pay?
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 127
- Location
- Leicester
Have you had advise recently? Previously advisers were paid though commissions from the insurance company and/or through through the funds.
Since 2013 this has now been stopped and advisers are paid explicit fee's that will either come from the pension fund or the client will need to pay via cheque.
This change was to make adviser fee's more explicit and transparent. So you could have paid previously and not had the commission disclosed to you.
Well I suppose they might and not disclosed it to me.
You're right, and now you've mentioned it I remember the talk about it coming in. We had a few meetings in end 2013/start 2014 though, and weren't charged
.
The question is do you want to retire at 60 or 70? By the time it gets round to it the government will probably be trying to force people to work until they keel over and die with the way things are going.
I pay a lot into a pension and various investments because I want to retire at 50, if not 40. Then again I can afford to.
I pay a lot into a pension and various investments because I want to retire at 50, if not 40. Then again I can afford to.
That's partially true, as the commission ban has not yet been applied to workplace pensions. 2 more years to go before that comes in.
The cost of 'advice' in this case is probably built in to the AMC on the funds within the pension.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,489
- Location
- At Home
Do you know many people at 65, 75 or 80+ male or female that hold down a full-time job.
I have lived / worked with a lot of people is this age range and from my own experience with the way the human body is..... everything starts changing at between 65-70. If they haven't developed one or more type of medical problem - they will. They will most likely be on some type of medication and will be taking more than average sick days - if not for a physical ailment, for a mental one.
Most importantly - I find with most elderly people - the brain becomes less sharp, they become irrational and unable to adapt to situations or perform complex tasks or problems. This is especially evident with people I know over 70. They focus on stuff that is unimportant and fret about things that others would not worry about.... elderly women especially.
What you also find is that as they are 3 or 4 generations older than the people they are working with, they just don't understand the way things 'are' - or how to deal with situations in a modern working environment. You actually notice people over 60-65 getting less active as the years go on, losing their strength / having less motivation - and then there's all the baggage that comes with an elderly employee - like a sick wife, crazy kids / grandchildren / sick friends.....
I honestly don't see how a government could force the majority of people to work past 70 - it's bad enough making people work up to 60-65.
Last edited:
You're right, no one really knows how much it will be worth, but it's fairly easy to get a close idea.
starting age: 26
retirement age: 65
return on investment: 5%
salary growth: 3%
starting salary: £30,000
employee contribution: 6%
employer contribution: 6%
Transfer Value at Retirement: £668,630
On the whole, your comments are fair, but I was a bit tongue in cheek, mostly to the "I'll die before I get my pension" comments. If I'm working until 70 either I want to be in an enjoyable high paid career job, or a simple job getting me out the house and a discount at the supermarket etc.
I'm hoping that 30-40 years of better healthcare and awareness (e.g. less smoking and drinking) will help. I'm also inspired from by many (good) people I've worked with in my industry who have retired against their will in their late 60s.
However it's a long way away and I'll see what happens.
What happens if you draw your pension at 65 and die at 67? Does the rest of the pot get inherited?
all depends on whether it's a final salary scheme, company scheme or personal pensions. Different rules apply dependant on the type of scheme etc.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
That depends entirely on what you do with it. If you still have a pot, then yes it does.
If you buy an annuity then there is no more pot and you get whatever the terms of the annuity say you do (e.g. you can buy a guarantee).
Current life expectancy prediction for someone age 65 today is 21 years (male) and 24 years (female).
You only want 15 years? Do you love your job or something?
Me I hate my job, I basically plan to have at least 30 or 40 years retirement. What's the point in all the modern infrastructure if we're working up until death like farm hands of old, and you're creaky and knackered and unable to enjoy it?
If I'm gonna live with all the bull****tery that comes with modern life I want the good stuff too. The labour saving in particular, why work hard when you can get program a computer to do most of the work and get all of the credit?
A colleague passed away a few years ago and his three daughters and wife got some sort of split of his 'pot' in a form of a salary.
I pay 9% of my salary, which contains additional voluntary contributions over and above that matched by my employer. They do not match 9%.
I think you are feeling the pinch due to the greed of your predecessors and the rest of the public sector I'm afraid.
You are now paying for your colleagues who were happy to retire in their early 50s with fat pensions, ready to put their feet up and be fed by the rest of the population for the next 30 years of their lives. All the rest of the public sector sat by and watched as this obviously unsustainable state of affairs continued; all sat gleefully waiting for the end of their own 25-30 year service when they could do exactly the same. After all, it is what they "deserved". The sense of entitlement in public sector workers is outrageous. Not necessarily emergency services staff, but council, government bodies, some educationalists etc. I know plenty of each and I've never heard anything like the stuff they come out with.
I've had first hand accounts from people admitting they don't work hard as there is almost no accountability. Accounts of flexi time abuse (basically just taking the ****), working from home abuse (again, basically just taking the ****), plenty of annual leave entitlement (30+ days a year), a tendency to do only what is in their specific job description and no more, plus an endemic culture of taking sick. Some of the first hand stories I've heard are obscene, from people who are actually smug about all these things!
You guys should have spotted this a mile off. The pensions were ridiculous, retiring at a relatively early age on a final salary pension ready to withdraw an annuity for another 30 years? Come on, did you honestly think it could last forever? The default public sector point about bonuses and salary etc. - it will rarely compare favourably with extra years of much bigger pensions. Most private sector workers don't get large bonuses, probably only a fraction get anything like 5-10%. On top of all this, Labour, from the mid to late 90s onwards invented a whole swathe of non-jobs for tools in the public sector. At some point the whole thing was bound to come crashing down.
Last edited: